I'm genuinely curious now, given all the speechlessness in being appalled: what specific aspects of the piece are so contemptible?

I can't really be bothered to give it that much attention, and I gave up reading halfway through, but I thought it insulted the intelligence of millions of Beatles fans, men and women. Flex touched on the most salient parts.

I just polished off some Low Country shrimp & grits and a mess of collards. That's a hell of a strain on the arm.

The Beatles's releases will become as culturally important as the Mona Lisa in the years to come, and should be lovingly restored and maintained accordingly.

They're arguably there. That is, they've managed to transcend their historical context to be relevant to those who were born long after the albums were made, and their significance has achieved a certain public ownership. They've managed the neat trick of being mass culture yet far, far greater than being only commercial art.

I'm genuinely curious now, given all the speechlessness in being appalled: what specific aspects of the piece are so contemptible?

I can't really be bothered to give it that much attention, and I gave up reading halfway through, but I thought it insulted the intelligence of millions of Beatles fans, men and women. Flex touched on the most salient parts.

Okay. I was curious whether people were disputing the notion of sexism in rock and whether the Beatles (however intended) could have contributed to it, or her manner of making the argument.

The Beatles's releases will become as culturally important as the Mona Lisa in the years to come, and should be lovingly restored and maintained accordingly.

They're arguably there. That is, they've managed to transcend their historical context to be relevant to those who were born long after the albums were made, and their significance has achieved a certain public ownership. They've managed the neat trick of being mass culture yet far, far greater than being only commercial art.

Yeah, I nearly said "are" rather than "will."

I still think the power of music in the latter half of the 20th century is underestimated, and that many, many songs will be remembered and played in the centuries to come (if we last that long).

I just polished off some Low Country shrimp & grits and a mess of collards. That's a hell of a strain on the arm.

I'm genuinely curious now, given all the speechlessness in being appalled: what specific aspects of the piece are so contemptible?

I can't really be bothered to give it that much attention, and I gave up reading halfway through, but I thought it insulted the intelligence of millions of Beatles fans, men and women. Flex touched on the most salient parts.

Okay. I was curious whether people were disputing the notion of sexism in rock and whether the Beatles (however intended) could have contributed to it, or her manner of making the argument.

Edit: Read the question wrong.

I just polished off some Low Country shrimp & grits and a mess of collards. That's a hell of a strain on the arm.

The Beatles's releases will become as culturally important as the Mona Lisa in the years to come, and should be lovingly restored and maintained accordingly.

They're arguably there. That is, they've managed to transcend their historical context to be relevant to those who were born long after the albums were made, and their significance has achieved a certain public ownership. They've managed the neat trick of being mass culture yet far, far greater than being only commercial art.

Yeah, I nearly said "are" rather than "will."

I still think the power of music in the latter half of the 20th century is underestimated, and that many, many songs will be remembered and played in the centuries to come (if we last that long).

As I mentioned upthread, the Beatles managed to pull off becoming both folk—in that they've achieved public ownership, beyond private property—and high art, in the sense of being evaluated by the those standards. That's exceedingly rare. Dylan is the only other artist of the rock n roll era that has pulled that off, in my estimation.

I'm genuinely curious now, given all the speechlessness in being appalled: what specific aspects of the piece are so contemptible?

I think I gave my answer above: I think her conclusions are broadly correct, but I think the specifics and where she places blame are both wrong and mostly just unsubstantiated assertions (I keep going back to her argument about the album art. How the hell is the Sgt. Pepper album cover alienating in a way that Revolver wasn't? My mom grew up with that album, she loves the cover. I just don't see any evidence that any of the specifics of the album she cites have much merit)

Also, this was brought up in the twitterspheres, but some women pointed out how grossly sexist it is for Marcotte to assert that women couldn't understand or connect to what the Beatles were doing during this time. The gender essentialism is a trademark of Marcotte's brand of centrist neo-liberal feminism.

That's a really good point that I didn't even catch when I first read the article. I am often at the receiving end of this with my Clash fandom (not from any of you) - thinking about the time I told a guy in a record store that the reason the copy of London Calling he was holding didn't have Mag 7 on it is because it's on Sandinista, and he was insistent that I was incorrect. I don't think he would have been like that to another man. Another time, we were at a reading with the author of a kids book called "What is Punk?" (Cute as hell book, BTW, with great clay art illustrations) and the writer assumed VH was the Clash fan. I don't necessarily blame him, but I was taken aback. Mainly because VH has such terrible music taste.

That's a really good point that I didn't even catch when I first read the article. I am often at the receiving end of this with my Clash fandom (not from any of you) - thinking about the time I told a guy in a record store that the reason the copy of London Calling he was holding didn't have Mag 7 on it is because it's on Sandinista, and he was insistent that I was incorrect. I don't think he would have been like that to another man. Another time, we were at a reading with the author of a kids book called "What is Punk?" (Cute as hell book, BTW, with great clay art illustrations) and the writer assumed VH was the Clash fan. I don't necessarily blame him, but I was taken aback. Mainly because VH has such terrible music taste.

And that again speaks to the dominant discourse, even today, that rock is meant for guys. Early on punk created a more open space for both sexes, but it didn't take long for fans and writers to again assert that punk (especially hardcore) was a male space. One of the sad things about early punk scenes in the 70s—New York, London, L.A., San Francisco—is how much openness and variety there was, but audiences—fans and writers—pushed for boundaries and stricter definitions, casting out weirdos who weren't the right kind of weird. The musicians themselves generally fed off the heterodoxical nature of the scenes, but it's everyone else that demanded categorization.

Love the boost in sound on the new Sgt Pepper's, but it still is too dominated by subpar filler.

I used to subscribe to the filler position, but I dunno, I think all the songs are pretty great. Even Harrison's dumb sitar bullshit is fun in-context. Nothing really stands out as obvious filler to me anymore.

Love the boost in sound on the new Sgt Pepper's, but it still is too dominated by subpar filler.

I used to subscribe to the filler position, but I dunno, I think all the songs are pretty great. Even Harrison's dumb sitar bullshit is fun in-context. Nothing really stands out as obvious filler to me anymore.

And it's still probably not even in my top 3 (or 5?) Beatles records.

There's one early take of "Within You …" on the new set that I found myself digging, just letting the drone dominate. I'm not keen on McCartney's lightweight stuff on side two, but I tend to evaluate the Beatles against themselves. Even iffy McCartney is better than a lot of people's best.